Karma: the fact the Romney family may experience from Ron Paul
supporters what George Romney delivered Barry Goldwater at the 1964 GOP
convention. If you remember, Romney led the Rockefeller arm of the GOP
to turn against Goldwater.

If you don't know the story of how the Rockefeller arm of the GOP turned
on conservative Barry Goldwater in 1964, ensuring he would lose the
presidential election, it's all part of the long going story ofprogressivism in the Republican party that dates back to the days of
Abraham Lincoln. There are many in the Republican party who detest the
word conservative. They look down upon conservatives and libertarians in
the Republican party, and they only use us in hopes we will vote for
the lesser of two evils.

You may remember how the same Rockefeller arm supporting moderate George
Bush tried to play games with the GOP primary in New Hampshire.

Well, of course the candidate this year who often seems shut out of the
debate receiving fewer questions is Ron Paul. We all know the
Rockefeller establishment is for the liberal Republican Mitt Romney, a
man who supported abortion until he decided to run for president. A man
who supports gun control, tax and spend government, and of course
Ombamneycare, having ran the pilot program in Massachusetts.

As Iowa approached and conservative Ron Paul was surging, we saw an
effort from the Republican establishment to purge any chance of a Ron
Paul victory as even the governor insulted the voters of Iowa claiming
Iowa won't count if Paul wins. Paul's supporters definitely feel
discounted in by the establishment in 2012.

Yet, it's looking more and more like the establishment will soon beg
Paul supporters to support liberal Mitt Romney in order to stop Obama. I
scratch my head wondering how supporting someone who looks like Obama
on paper from gun control to cap and trade to healthcare is stopping
Obama. If Obama's policies live after he leaves the White House, that'snot exactly stopping Obama.

That's the challenge the GOP establishment faces--attracting Ron Paul
supporters to support the liberal Republican Romney. I know I won't be
casting a vote for Romney in 2012. It will be the first time I haven't
voted for the Republican candidate, even though I wasn't voting for John
McCain until Sarah Palin came along for the ride.

Isn't it ironic, nearly fifty years after George Romney, the liberal
Republican governor of Michigan, led the walkout of Republicans using
Saul Alinsky tactics at the 1964 Republican convention ensuring the
divide in the GOP that led to Barry Goldwater's defeat, the Republican
establishment will soon beg Ron Paul supporters, the same people they
alienated to come together and vote for Mitt Romney. The Romney family
never backed Goldwater. George Romney led many within his party to
oppose Goldwater and at campaign appearances about whether he supported Goldwater, he replied, "You know darn well I'm not!"

It really is the ultimate slap in the face for Ron Paul supporters and
it could be the ultimate form of political karma in our lifetime. The
Republican establishment can beg all they want, but I refuse to vote for
the abortion supporting, gun grabbing, tax and spend, government
mandate loving Mitt Romney. In fact, it would be nice to see Paul
supporters organize their own protest at this years GOP convention in
the spirit of George Romney against the inevitable GOP nominee.

So ask me if I will support Mitt Romney for President, and I will reply, "you know darn well I'm not."

lets try ron paul is a classic liberal. his ideas are liberal. starting with: marijuana, border security, instant amnesty, military spending, fiscal plans relating to the classical liberal structure. hes a libertarian. I think I know better than you considering I have a bachelors degree in poliitcal science and am as well running for office.

Border Security: Wants to end the illegal wars and bring our troops home to PROTECT >>OUR<< Borders using the current laws that are on the books to enforce illegal immigration and cease benefits to those the are not LEGAL immigrants. So that's liberal? Got it.

Military Spending: After ending the illegal wars and getting our troops back home where they belong, he wants to reopen military installations that were previously closed and invest money in National Defense pertaining to more advanced military equipment that will insure that our military will never be 2nd to none in technology.So that's liberal? Got it.

Fiscal Plans: ALL states have a Department of Education, EPA, DEP and Department of Welfare. There is no need to have redundant Federal agencies that suck more tax dollars from the American people when the State agencies can handle the same duties at the state level more efficient. Essentially cutting government waste. So that's liberal? Got it.

As per the constitution, the regulation of alcohol at the federal level was deemed unconstitutional and hence Prohibition was overturned and the power of regulation and laws were reverted back to the states as per the constitution. No where in the constitution is there authority for the Federal enforcement of...

So let me get this straight.

Border Security: Wants to end the illegal wars and bring our troops home to PROTECT >>OUR<< Borders using the current laws that are on the books to enforce illegal immigration and cease benefits to those the are not LEGAL immigrants. So that's liberal? Got it.

Military Spending: After ending the illegal wars and getting our troops back home where they belong, he wants to reopen military installations that were previously closed and invest money in National Defense pertaining to more advanced military equipment that will insure that our military will never be 2nd to none in technology.So that's liberal? Got it.

Fiscal Plans: ALL states have a Department of Education, EPA, DEP and Department of Welfare. There is no need to have redundant Federal agencies that suck more tax dollars from the American people when the State agencies can handle the same duties at the state level more efficient. Essentially cutting government waste. So that's liberal? Got it.

As per the constitution, the regulation of alcohol at the federal level was deemed unconstitutional and hence Prohibition was overturned and the power of regulation and laws were reverted back to the states as per the constitution. No where in the constitution is there authority for the Federal enforcement of drugs and alcohol. Like alcohol, drug regulation and enforcement should be a state issue. So that's liberal? Got it.

(a) often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity(b) : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard(c) : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)http://www.merriam-webster.co...

The Classic Liberal Blog may be considered too "conservative" for libertarians, and too "libertarian" for conservatives, yet both conservatives and libertarians can find much to offer on this blog.

Yeah, I know ... so let's get into a bit of detail.

For starters, you'll have to stick around for awhile and read numerous posts before really understanding our overall theme. The posting schedule can be a little erratic, the topics often change whimsically, and theCL's dry sense of humor, difficult to catch-on to in person, can be even more difficult to catch in written word.

It is highly-recommended that you give us 6-8 weeks worth of reading (commenting would be even better!) prior to drawing conclusions about the opinions expressed here.

What differentiates us?

For Conservatives: We believe conservatism was defined most accurately in Barry Goldwater's manifesto, The Conscience of a Conservative. To borrow Barry's words, we believe "the Conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?"

Because this is our first concern, you'll find a couple of things unique here in comparison to the average conservative blog:

1) We believe Conservatism is a philosophy, not a political party. So you will at times...

thats the definition, but not the platform:

Blog Description:

The Classic Liberal Blog may be considered too "conservative" for libertarians, and too "libertarian" for conservatives, yet both conservatives and libertarians can find much to offer on this blog.

Yeah, I know ... so let's get into a bit of detail.

For starters, you'll have to stick around for awhile and read numerous posts before really understanding our overall theme. The posting schedule can be a little erratic, the topics often change whimsically, and theCL's dry sense of humor, difficult to catch-on to in person, can be even more difficult to catch in written word.

It is highly-recommended that you give us 6-8 weeks worth of reading (commenting would be even better!) prior to drawing conclusions about the opinions expressed here.

What differentiates us?

For Conservatives: We believe conservatism was defined most accurately in Barry Goldwater's manifesto, The Conscience of a Conservative. To borrow Barry's words, we believe "the Conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?"

Because this is our first concern, you'll find a couple of things unique here in comparison to the average conservative blog:

1) We believe Conservatism is a philosophy, not a political party. So you will at times find us playing apologetics to the Republican Party, you'll also find us treating them as what they are, a mere political corporation.

2) As Christians, we strongly believe in personal morality. We do not, however, believe it can or should be legislated. In fact, we believe that "legislating morality" denies God and harms the soul.

For Libertarians: We believe in the Non-Aggression Axiom, however, since so many people define this axiom in differently, the definition we follow is: No person may initiate or threaten to initiate the use of coercive physical force.

1) We do not believe the Non-Aggression Axiom rules out the use of force, but only that it rules out the use of force in violation of an individuals inalienable rights.

2) We believe that every individual has the right to his or her own property, and also the right to exclude others from use of said property.

3) We do concern ourselves with morality, however, we are against the use of force in order to create compliance with said morality. We are also pro-life. Science tells us that an unborn child is not an actual "part" of a woman's body, but is an individual body within her. We believe that without the right to life, nothing else matters.

Patriotism is something we believe in strongly! We believe it is essential to both individual liberty (all across the globe), and our American way of life. To us, patriotism is both a committed belief in the American Creed, as well as a committed belief in yourself as an individual.

Patriotism is not, however, any sort of allegiance to a government, whether that be the American government, or any other. While we certainly believe in loyalty, and will gladly root the "home team" on, we do not do it blindly. The American Creed comes first, everything else is secondary.

We do believe in American Exceptionalism! This does not mean we think less of any other people, from any other country. It simply means that we believe the American Creed, as defined in the Declaration of Independence, offers the best way of life, to all individuals everywhere!

In summary ... regardless who you are, you have your own unique opinions. We wouldn't want it any other way. So expect to both agree and disagree with the authors of this blog. Besides ... who wants to read the same opinions, which we exactly agree with, all the time?http://the-classic-liberal.co...

In order to better understand you, I have to know what you stand for. So if you would please do me a favor, I would like you to honestly answer one question. I'm going to show you a list of issues. I want you from that list, tell me which ones you support. Fair enough?

I think they just told you that so they wouldn't hurt your feelings. Because if your reading comprehension were greater than a first grader, you would have read in the above article, it was the Romney's that use Saul Alinsky tactics.

I'm going to give you a article to read pertaining to the founding fathers and their view on elections.

Now, I know this is a long shot and I highly doubt you'll read it. Secondly, I've questioned your reading comprehension before and you may read it and not understand it. Anyways, here you go.http://communities.washington...